Adherents of various religious traditions are deeply convinced of the truth of their own god, as their faith is shaped by sacred texts, historical experience, and cultural traditions that affirm the exclusivity of their understanding of the Divine.

Exclusivism and the Universal Quest for Divine Truth

Adherents of various religious traditions are deeply convinced of the truth of their own god, as their faith is shaped by sacred texts, historical experience, and cultural traditions that affirm the exclusivity of their understanding of the Divine. In every religious community there is its own interpretation of Divine truth, and sacred texts, as a rule, deny or reject other interpretations. This leads followers to assume that only their own conception of God is correct. This dogmatism is reflected, in particular, in the following statement:

"Every speech, every scripture rejects another speech, another scripture. Therefore, the ultimate goal of dialogue goes beyond religious traditions and consists in seeking the divine truth hidden beneath various words and symbols. There is no relativization of the Christian message, no form of syncretism here. It is the same Christ whom we worship, on His journey through the endless expanses of religions."
(source: link txt, page: 253)

This position contributes to the fact that when encountering representatives of other faiths, tension often arises—each side insists that only its own dogmas have a divine basis. The feeling of threat to one’s identity and religious heritage leads to distrust and resistance when attempts are made to find common ground for dialogue. This is particularly evident in issues related to the recognition of foreign symbols and doctrines, which may be perceived as a “denial” of one’s own sanctity. Thus, as stated in another source:

"But for biblical exclusivist thinking, such tactics are something new and unacceptable. Yet, at the same time, from the perspective of Western religious people, this position is rather seen as a sign of non-ideology and intolerance. For Christians, when Christ is viewed as one of the adherents of Buddha or Krishna, or the Himalayan Mahatmas, this stance is unacceptable."
(source: link txt, page: 28)

This conviction poses a challenge for interfaith dialogue. On one hand, the disagreements are rooted in fundamentally different conceptions of Divine truth, making it difficult to find common ground for mutual understanding. On the other hand, some religious traditions entertain the possibility of recognizing each other’s truth by asserting that if every believer, on their own path, finds in God a source of truth, then no religion is absolutely false:

"If a Muslim believes in the one God as the ruler of history and man, he too practices his own version of a true faith. Thus, we can say that no religion is absolutely false."
(source: link txt, page: 163)

Thus, the conviction in the truth of one’s own god and the exclusivism in interpreting the Divine reflect the cultural and historical conditioning inherent in each religion. This, in turn, influences interfaith dialogue, making it a complex and often emotionally charged process. However, the awareness of a common task—the search for a profound Divine truth hidden beneath different words and symbols—can become the foundation upon which honest and productive dialogue among representatives of various faiths is built.